State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[amateur51]

I think the Greens are a lost cause. I'll put money on a coalition between UKIP and the Conservatives. While Flobadob Moribund remains in charge of Labour then they are not going to fare very well and it's too late for Labour to get rid of him. Even if they did, the available choice of contenders is pretty limited verging on zero. Ed Balls as Prime Minister ? Yvette Cooper ? Ye Gods.

.. Whinge...negative post...whinge...negative post..it's just the same old...same old...[yawn emoticon]

Remarkable self-parody

[ahinton]

I'll put money on a coalition between UKIP and the Conservatives

Assuming that some bookie somewhere will accept your stake (how much money, by the way?), prepare to lose it; in any case, what makes you think (assuming that you do) that the combined number of seats won by those two parties (assuming that they'd be prepared against their respective better judgements to force themselves together) will suffice to achieve an overall majority? It seems well less than likely to me.

While Flobadob Moribund remains in charge of Labour then they are not going to fare very well and it's too late for Labour to get rid of him. Even if they did, the available choice of contenders is pretty limited verging on zero. Ed Balls as Prime Minister ? Yvette Cooper ? Ye Gods.

Hmmm - can't really disagree with you there...

[Richard Barrett]

I'm not celebrating the demise of Marxism, I'm noting it.

Whatever you're doing it's too soon to call. The transition from feudal to capitalist society was a long and geographically staggered process (which isn't even complete in some parts of the world), certainly long enough for there to have been many who thought the divine right of hereditary monarchs to rule was a law of nature that would never be superseded. The ideas have been in retreat in the West and the former Communist states for a few decades (South America of course being a different story). But demise? I would call that wishful thinking.

Anyway I'm sure I'm going to get kettled by the topic police aka PG Tipps if I carry on "promulgating my views on the "evils" of modern capitalism" without mentioning the parties contesting the May 2015 election so that will be that for now.

[Beef Oven!]

Politics & friendship don't mix!!

[Beef Oven!]

Richard BarrettQUOTE]

The transition from feudal to capitalist society was a long and geographically staggered process (which isn't even complete in some parts of the world), certainly long enough for there to have been many who thought the divine right of hereditary monarchs to rule was a law of nature that would never be superseded.

This supports my view that not only is the Marxist materialist conception of history erroneous, but it does not even explain, never mind predict, within its own paradigm.

The ideas have been in retreat in the West and the former Communist states for a few decades (South America of course being a different story). But demise? I would call that wishful thinking.

'Ideas in retreat' is quite a euphemism!

Anyway I'm sure I'm going to get kettled by the topic police aka PG Tipps if I carry on "promulgating my views on the "evils" of modern capitalism" without mentioning the parties contesting the May 2015 election so that will be that for now.

To avoid censure, you could talk about how capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty, and will continue to do so, until 'the job's done'.

[Richard Barrett]

This supports my view that not only is the Marxist materialist conception of history erroneous, but it does not even explain, never mind predict, within its own paradigm.

How?

'Ideas in retreat' is quite a euphemism!

In what way? It's an expression of the fact that it's very difficult to talk about those ideas in former "Communist" countries because people associate them with the unrecognisably distorted versions of recent memory. And if it's difficult to talk about them it's even more difficult for them to enter the agenda. The situation in the West is not so dissimilar of course, for different reasons.

To avoid censure, you could talk about how capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty, and will continue to do so, until 'the job's done'.

With inequality currently increasing in the world and poverty as a growing problem even in the supposedly rich countries (hence the paranoia about immigration of course, you can't have it both ways), the job looks more like being progressively undone, don't you think?

[P. G. Tipps]

Anyway I'm sure I'm going to get kettled by the topic police aka PG Tipps if I carry on "promulgating my views on the "evils" of modern capitalism" without mentioning the parties contesting the May 2015 election so that will be that for now.

Personally, I'm not at all bothered what you or anyone else here posts. I am as guilty of going off-topic as any other and it's not my job to judge what's suitable posting here, that's up to the Administrator/Moderators.

I have long noted how a tiny group of like-minded members tend to complain about what they conveniently deem to be an 'off-topic' view, which they oppose, whilst adopting a deafening silence, or even further support, for that of which they do approve. I simply did the same to highlight the clear double-standards!

The point has now been made.

[ahinton]

The transition from feudal to capitalist society was a long and geographically staggered process (which isn't even complete in some parts of the world), certainly long enough for there to have been many who thought the divine right of hereditary monarchs to rule was a law of nature that would never be superseded.

This supports my view that not only is the Marxist materialist conception of history erroneous, but it does not even explain, never mind predict, within its own paradigm.

I'm sorry but I don't follow; where is it suggested that the notion of "the divine right of hereditary monarchs to rule was a law of nature that would never be superseded" is exclusively part of a "Marxist materialist conception of history"? That idea is demonstrably misleading / misguided, given the overwhelming evidence that its passage into history has occurred in many countries where Marxism has rarely or never held sway.

[amateur51]

This supports my view that not only is the Marxist materialist conception of history erroneous, but it does not even explain, never mind predict, within its own paradigm.



'Ideas in retreat' is quite a euphemism!



To avoid censure, you could talk about how capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty, and will continue to do so, until 'the job's done'.

Oh so that's why so many British citizens have to rely on charity food banks to get through the week.

[teamsaint]

re S-A'a #816, I really can't see the problem in looking at things from this kind of perspective, given the apparent failure of, for instance, party politics , to solve many of our social , political and economic issues.

You wouldn't need to spend long doing something like commuting into London to start thinking that society has got rather a lot wrong, and not things that might easily solved at the ballot box.

[Beef Oven!]

How?

Because, I do not dispute that capitalism could be replaced one day, but Marxists give precise explanations and prescription of how it should come about and capitalism simply continues to reinvent itself.

Capitalism has had a great of number recessions in the last 150 years, including a number of huge ones that Marxist have heralded as 'the final crisis'. But it never is!

Scientific socialism has failed on all counts, and we needn't consider utopian socialism as it is not capable of falsification.

I took you to be referring to a phenomenon that was outside of either of these theories - as ahinton does, albeit accidentally.

In what way? It's an expression of the fact that it's very difficult to talk about those ideas in former "Communist" countries because people associate them with the unrecognisably distorted versions of recent memory. And if it's difficult to talk about them it's even more difficult for them to enter the agenda. The situation in the West is not so dissimilar of course, for different reasons.

The way I mean it is that Marxism simply does not have the currency that it had, say, from the 50s to the 80s. It's more of a collapse than a retreat.

With inequality currently increasing in the world and poverty as a growing problem even in the supposedly rich countries (hence the paranoia about immigration of course, you can't have it both ways), the job looks more like being progressively undone, don't you think?

If we are concerned with eradicating poverty, pursuing a policy of reducing inequality is a fool's errand.

On economic development over the past 150 years............"In relative terms, the poorest people in the developed economies and billions in the poor countries have been the biggest beneficiaries. The rich became richer, true. But the poor have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, low child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university and respect."

"Ethically speaking, the true liberal should care only about whether the poorest among us are moving closer to having enough to live with dignity and to participate in a democracy. They are. Even in already rich countries, such as the UK and the US, the real income of the poor has recently risen, not stagnated—if, that is, income is correctly measured to include better healthcare, better working conditions, more years of education, longer retirements and, above all, the rising quality of goods"

From the Catallaxy blog.

[teamsaint]

living standards have fallen over the last 7 years,for the lowest 10% as well as middle earners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25966075

and those other factors, healthcare, working conditions etc, haven't improved.

There is an asset strip of the less well off going on, and it shows no sign of stopping.

[Beef Oven!]

living standards have fallen over the last 7 years,for the lowest 10% as well as middle earners.

Not talking about year on year fluctuations around mid-point earning levels. Talking about real Living standards across the board.

and those other factors, healthcare, working conditions etc, haven't improved.

Life expectancy and virtually all other health-outcomes have improved. Working conditions have improved enormously. Most NHS workers for example have enjoyed income increases of over 4% year on year in the last 5 years, more in previous years (most of them will get at least a 3% inflation busting rise this year). The EU Agency Workers directive, Stautory holiday/annual leave increases, fixed-term contract protection, automatic pension enrolment, flexible working arrangements, carers' leave, adoption leave, the list is almost endless.

There is an asset strip of the less well off going on, and it shows no sign of stopping.

The less well off (and there will always be people who are less well off) have not had their assets stolen from them. If they have, the thieves should be sent to prison.

[Richard Barrett]

Capitalism does indeed continue to reinvent itself and each version is more insidious and noxious than the rest. I fail to see how in the face of all the facts you can claim that it's tending towards eradicating poverty; it really isn't. Nor is its destruction of our environment sustainable in the long or perhaps even the medium term.

Scientific socialism has failed on all counts, and we needn't consider utopian socialism as it is not capable of falsification.

I took you to be referring to a phenomenon that was outside of either of these theories

I don't recognise your terminology so I can't really comment on this.

[Beef Oven!]

Capitalism does indeed continue to reinvent itself and each version is more insidious and noxious than the rest. I fail to see how in the face of all the facts you can claim that it's tending towards eradicating poverty; it really isn't. Nor is its destruction of our environment sustainable in the long or perhaps even the medium term.

Insidious and noxious? Hmm.

"In relative terms, the poorest people in the developed economies and billions in the poor countries have been the biggest beneficiaries. The rich became richer, true. But the poor have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, low child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university and respect."

I don't recognise your terminology so I can't really comment on this.

You jolly well do recognise the terminology. You of course don't have to comment if you don't want to/can't be bothered.